- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
At 10:22 +0200 23/09/08, Raphaël Troncy wrote: >Dear all, > >Thanks David, I mostly agree with what you wrote. >Some comments inlined. > >>>There are two solutions, perhaps, to this >>>problem: (a) relate all media annotation >>>systems by means of a firm semantic >>>background, so that a machine translator can >>>do the best it can ('the tag called title is >>>the formal_name of the work', 'the tag called >>>author is the formal_name of the person who >>>created the words of the work'); (b) have a >>>small set of tags which we encourage should be >>>implemented in any standard. >>> >>>We prefer (b) now; (a) is a research project, >>>not a standards activity. As a basis here, >>>we'd like to consider the very-commonly-used >>>ID3 tags (to the extent that they are defined). >> >>Our charter >>http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html >>says that we ought to develop a "simple lingua >>franca" between existing standards. I translate >>"simple" into "also useable *as is*", that is >>into what you describe as (b). I also agree >>that we should concentrate on (b), and I think >>there is a some agreement in this group about >>that. What do others think? > >I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. How >will you classify the RDF Schema of Dublin Core >(DC) [1]? How will you classifiy the IPTC Photo >Metadata Standard [2] that does contain a formal >definition of the properties as well as >particular implementations (NAR, XMP)? > >I think we want to do something between a) and b). >ID3 is a good and bad example: the format does >not enforce the meaning of specific properties, >and anyone can add new properties. But there is >a de facto set of properties commonly used, and >this is your b) approach. However, users do not >consistently used the properties. For example, >when you need to describe your classical music >songs, you don't know if you should only use the >'author' property, or add a 'composer', >'performer', etc property. There is hence >interop problem with ID3. >The MMSEM XG has proposed a formal definition of >the most commonly used ID3 tags [3] using the >Music Ontology [4]. This is the a) approach. I agree we can be tighter than ID3, while consistent with it. (Or at least not inconsistent with it!) -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 18:23:20 UTC